Apple Goes Back To EPEAT

An anonymous reader writes with a followup to news from last weekend that Apple had turned its back on the EPEAT hardware certification standard. After hearing criticism from customers, the media, and governmental organizations that Apple wasn't being environmentally friendly, the company's Hardware Engineering VP, Bob Mansfield, wrote today that its earlier decision was a mistake, and all of Apple's eligible products are back on EPEAT. (EPEAT welcomed Apple back with open arms.) Mansfield repeated an earlier statement from Apple that EPEAT does not measure all the ways in which the company's products are environmentally friendly. Mansfield said, "For example, Apple led the industry in removing harmful toxins such as brominated flame retardants (BFRs) and polyvinyl chloride (PVC). We are the only company to comprehensively report greenhouse gas emissions for every product we make, taking into account the entire product lifecycle. And we’ve removed plastics wherever possible, in favor of materials that are more highly recyclable, more durable, more efficient and longer lasting. Perhaps most importantly, we make the most energy-efficient computers in the world and our entire product line exceeds the stringent ENERGY STAR 5.2 government standard. No one else in our industry can make that claim."

Comments

EPEAT caves

[jbolden]

I think the /. summary has this a bit backwards. Just read the letter from EPEAT:

We look forward to Apple’s strong and creative thoughts on ongoing standards development. The outcome must reward new directions for both design and sustainability, simultaneously supporting the environment and the market for all manufacturers’ elegant and high-performance products.

An interesting question for EPEAT is how to reward innovations that are not yet envisioned with standards that are fixed at a point in time. Diverse goals, optional points awarded for innovations not yet described, and flexibility within specified parameters to make this happen are all on the table in EPEAT stakeholder discussions. And of course, timely standards development, as with newly created Imaging Equipment and Television standards, and the current refresh of the PC/Display standard, is critical as well.

This was a messy situation and I think EPEAT did the right thing here in moving forward on recycling standards for computers and smartphones with closed cases and non removable batteries. So I'm happy that we are going to end up with better standards for recycling and at the same time Apple doesn't break with the environmental groups. This is a win-win in terms of policy that probably wouldn't have happened if Apple hadn't publicly stormed off. But /. shouldn't be writing this up as Apple caving to criticism. Their policies on recycling (i.e. the need for an expert recycler like http://www.werecycle.com/ ) haven't changed its EPEAT that is altering policy.

Re:EPEAT caves

[Tough Love]

I'm happy that we are going to end up with better standards for recycling and at the same time Apple doesn't break with the environmental groups.

Apple already broke with the environmental groups. The damage that was done is permanent. And by the way, any product with a battery glued in sucks beyond belief.

Re: EPEAT caves

[daveschroeder]

If you actually care about the environment more than you hate Apple, you'd realize that Apple is more green in terms of how it makes (AND recycles) its products than any other major electronics manufacturer. Environmental groups just like to eviscerate Apple for PR, even though it's one of the most transparent and aggressive on protecting the environment and green tech.

The funniest thing? In a few years we'll see every other vendor following Apple's lead, as they always do.

Re:EPEAT caves

[daveschroeder]

Oh yeah, Apple caved.

That must be why the Retina MacBook Pro — you know, the reason why Apple pulled out of EPEAT? — is now EPEAT Gold certified.

...

I'm sure your reply will ignore that simple, clear fact. I do applaud your trolling in this thread, though! It's entertaining!

Re: EPEAT caves

[Sir_Sri]

It's probably a fair point that Apple gets a lot of unfair criticism because they disclose quite a lot, and they are individually one of the bigger and more profitable outfits. But that doesn't make them saints.

Making devices harder to repair is/was a step backwards. Even if everything they had done to that point was a good idea (which by no means is it), it was still a bad idea to make devices into a metal box of glue and solder.

Besides that, the reason you do business in china is that it's cheap, and it's cheap because they have lax labour and environmental laws, and are happy to pay people shitty wages. In the long run that's the only way china will develop into having decent wages, so fair enough, it's going to happen, and Apple is there to take advantage of that, just like everyone else. No one with any sort of soul is particularly pleased with this arrangement, including I'm sure a huge portion of apple or their competitions staff, but they're still doing it.

Not stupid at all

[Anonymous Coward]

They turned their back on EPEAT just to get the news coverage....doing something bad like that made all the haters spread the word just as much as the fans. Then, when they flip-flopped, all the haters suddenly got a nice little spiel about how they are not only EPEAT-compliant, but even better. And the haters actually paid attention because they were interested now.

And the fans are still happy because Apple is still certified now.

Excellent marketing, all-in-all.

Re:Not stupid at all

[PopeRatzo]

Excellent marketing, all-in-all.

Sadly, no.

It looks like they were trying to cut some corners, got caught and slapped down hard.

It reminds "fans" to think about the environmental (and social) impact of Apple's manufacturing practices, and believe me, that is not something Apple wants people thinking about, any more than a steak house wants people thinking about cows and the meat packing business. Apple, on the other hand, knows that a majority of their fans likes to think about meat packing, but not so much about 13 year-olds working on assembly lines 16 hours a day in a plant that dumps toxic chemicals into the water supply.

"Excellent marketing...fans happy...Apple still certified..." You hit all the bullet points from yesterday's memo. Well done.

Public admission of being wrong

[frnic]

I commend Apple for saying in public "we were wrong".

Indeed, but no one "caved"...

[daveschroeder]

Apple helped create the EPEAT standards alongside the other stakeholders who helped define it.

Apple even has a contract to recycle products from ANY manufacturer, for free, with free shipping fees and boxes provided. What other vendor does this? Who puts their money where their mouth is on the environment?

Apple's products, in real, practical terms, are MORE recyclable, in terms of recyclable content contained therein, and the ability to actually recycle them — albeit by using Apple's programs for things like iPhone, iPad, and now the Retina MacBook Pro — and that many other EPEAT-certified products may be (and are) markedly worse than Apple's products in this sense, but can still be certified because they are able to be disassembled with conventional tools. How does that make them "more green"?

EPEAT alone isn't the end-all, be-all of green certifications. Organizations use EPEAT because it is a metric; a box that is easy to check; an easy way to define the "greenness" of a product. Apple helped develop the EPEAT standard, and has been one of the most committed and transparent manufacturers to green tech, environment, and recycling. No other major vendor has this level of transparency.

And Apple is STILL targeted by folks like Greenpeace, even as Apple is pursuing green more aggressively than its competitors, with Data Center Knowledge noting:

Greenpeace’s continuing use of this methodology, in light of Apple’s disclosure and permit data, raises several possibilities:

- Greenpeace is having difficulty developing estimates that accurately incorporate data center operations and power usage.
- Greenpeace is predisposed to cling to estimates that make Apple look less “green” because it generates more headlines for its awareness campaigns.

EPEAT didn't cave on anything — but the next generation of EPEAT would do well to consider the real, end-to-end recyclability and carbon footprint of electronic products.

Re:Brilliant PR move

[Tough Love]

In what universe is two hundred dollars to replace a battery not exhorbitant?

You make WHAT, Apple?

[Khyber]

"Perhaps most importantly, we make the most energy-efficient computers in the world"

My Kill-A-Watt would like to have a word with you, as I have several computers that run much faster than your crap and don't consume nearly as much power.